Project report

For the subject ‘political science’

Name of the topic: Diverse Perspectives of

Justice
Submitted by: Muskan [81/20], Niyati [ 85/20]

Course: B.A.LL.B.[hons.] second semester

1|Page
  Rawls theory of justice
o 1.1definition of justice
o 1.2 justice as fairness
o 1.3 classical utilitarianism
o 1.4 two principles of justice
o critical appraisal

 Nozick theory of justice

o 2.1modes of acquisition
o 2.2principles of entitlement
o 2.3 critical appraisal

 Marxist view on justice

o 3.1concern with justice
 3.2 ABOLITION OF CAPITALISM AND ESTABLISHMENT OF
COMMUNISM
 3.3 MARX TWO CONCEPTS OF JUSTICE
o 4.conclusion
o 5.bibliography

2|Page
 RAWLS' THEORY OF JUSTICE
John Rawls was an American political philosopher, the publication of whose famous book, A
Theory of Justice, in 1971, was an event of great significance because it almost single-
handedly revived the disciplines of political philosophy and political theory. Rawls obtained
both his undergraduate degree (1943) and his Ph.D. in philosophy (1950) from Princeton
University. He joined the American army during the Second World War, and once the war
was over, he finished his Ph.D. and began teaching. He taught at Harvard University for
several decades from the 1960s to the 1990s and became famous for writing several
important books in political philosophy like A Theory of Justice (1971), Political Liberalism
(1993), and The Law of Peoples (1999). In an interview that he gave to the Harvard Review
of Philosophy in March 1991, Rawls talked about writing A Theory of Justice in the context
of the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement in America. “…serious political
conflict”, he said, “shows the need for political philosophy and calls it forth”. “For a long
time there had been a relative dearth of political philosophy—both in political science and
moral philosophy”, and when the publication of A Theory of Justice filled this gap, it got an
overwhelming response.
In His Celebrated Work A Theory of Justice (1971) Has Pointed Out That a Good Society Is
Characterized by A Number of Virtues. Justice Is the First Virtue of a Good Society. In Other
Words, Justice Is a Necessary but Not a Sufficient Condition of a Good Society. Those Who
Argue That Justice Should Not Be Allowed to Come in The Way of Social Advancement and
Progress, Run the Risk of Causing the Moral Degradation of Society. It is interesting to note
that during the heyday of Soviet communism and Cold War Rawls offered an alternative
scheme of political liberalism which was based on minimal state concept. He did not regard
inequality as basis of society and enemy of social progress. Equality cannot be accepted as an
important highway leading to the big capital of justice. Equality, inequality and other related
ideas are to be judged in the background of social justice and social progress. He propounded
his theory keeping the idea in mind that American capitalist system cannot be thoroughly
revised or rejected. It has revised itself frequently.
Rawls’ theory of justice consists of “certain distributive principles for the basic structure of
society”. In the light of this analysis John Rawls defines justice in the following words. “The
concept of justice I take to be defined by the role of its principles in assuming rights and
duties in defining the appropriate division of social advantages. A conception of justice is an
interpretation of this role”. Justice is, thus, an interpretation of principles that are suggested
for the distribution of rights and duties and at the same time division of social advantages
among all the members of body politic.
Definition of Justice
Rawls says that the conception of justice is an inherent nature of our social as well as practical life.
Barker has expressed a similar idea. However, in the opinion of Rawls “Justice in the first virtue of
social intuitions as truth is of system of thought”. Justice is related to the social institutions which
guide and mould the actions and ideas of social beings. We cannot imagine of a well-ordered society
whose core concept is not justice. Justice binds all men and institutions of society. The joining
capacity and feature of justice has been forcefully advocated by Barker and Rawls shares the views of
Barker. John Rawls has viewed justice in the background of society and for this reason he says that
the main concern of the subject matter of justice is social structure which is the core of the society.
That is justice deals with the basic social structure. The social institutions are very important in the
sense that they take the responsibility of distributing the fundamental rights and duties efficiently. It is

3|Page
also the important task of the social institutions to allocate judiciously the privileges and advantages
for the people of society. Constitution, social, political and economic arrangements are included into
these social institutions. Thus, justice may conveniently be regarded as a social principle which
determines the ways and procedure of distributing the rights and duties for the members of society. He
further calls justice a social scheme on the basis of which rights, duties, opportunities and condition
are allotted. Thus, justice is both a principle and a scheme.
Rawls was of opinion that “various conceptions of justice are the outgrowth of different notions of
society against the background of opposing views of the natural necessities and opportunities of
human life”. In any liberal society opposing views must exist side by side and out of them a common
opinion will one day emerge which will give rise to justice. So, justice may duly be regarded as a
“proper balance between competing claims (emphasis added)”. This point of Rawls reminds us of
Rousseau’s general will which is the outcome of deliberations held at open general meeting and
participated by all citizens.
Rawls’ theory of justice consists of “certain distributive principles for the basic structure of society”.
In the light of this analysis John Rawls defines justice in the following words. “The concept of justice
I take to be defined by the role of its principles in assuming rights and duties in defining the
appropriate division of social advantages. A conception of justice is an interpretation of this role”.
Justice is, thus, an interpretation of principles that are suggested for the distribution of rights and
duties and at the same time division of social advantages among all the members of body politic.
JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS:
The main theme of Rawls’ theory of justice is it is interpreted as fairness. The dictionary meaning of
fairness is appropriateness or just: In Rawls’ conception that arrangement can be called just or
appropriate which does not create any scope of partiality or inappropriate. The principles for the
distribution of rights, duties and advantages will be applied in such manner as will give no
controversy.
Rawls explains the term fairness in the following way: “I shall try to use this principle to account for
all requirements that are obligations as distinct from natural duties. This principle holds that a person
is required to do his part as defined by the rules of an institution when two conditions are met, first the
institution is just (or fair) that is it satisfies the two principles of justice and second, one has
voluntarily accepted the benefits of the arrangement”.
1. The Role of Justice
Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A
theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue;
likewise, laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be
reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability
founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For
this reason, justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater
good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are
outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. Therefore, in a just
society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by
justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests. The
only thing that permits us to acquiesce in an erroneous theory is the lack of a better
one; analogously, an injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even
greater injustice. Being first virtues of human activities, truth and justice are
uncompromising. These propositions seem to express our intuitive conviction of the
primacy of justice. No doubt they are expressed too strongly.
2. Main idea of theory of justice
After good deal of labour Rawls concludes that justice as fairness can aptly be traced
to the social contract theory explained by Locke, Rousseau and Kant. He states that
the contract theory has several facets such as formation of civil society set up a
government. But Rawls is not concerned with all these facets. His chief aim is how

4|Page
 the original agreement helped the establishment of justice in society. The rational and
free individuals met together and settled among themselves the principles of original
contract:
(1) One such principle is they would cooperate among themselves to further their interests.
(2) The society shall be established on the principle of equality.
(3) Subsequently other terms of agreement may be finalised but these two terms—
Cooperation and equality shall guide and control these terms.
(4) On the basis of contract, a society or government will be constituted but the
purpose of this government (or society) shall be to ensure justice.
John Rawls claims that the justice established in this way can be called justice as
fairness.

CLASSICAL UTILITARIANISM
Rawls has evolved a unique methodology for arriving at a unanimous procedure of justice. Following
the tradition of the 'social contract' Rawls has envisaged an 'original position' by abstracting the
individuals from their particular social and economic circumstances. These individuals are
symbolically placed behind a 'veil of ignorance' where they are supposed to be deliberating as rational
agents. They are totally unaware of their wants, interests, skills and abilities as well as of the
conditions which lead to discrimination and conflict in society. But they have an elementary
knowledge of economics and psychology, and are also endowed with a 'sense of justice'. Each
individual wants to maximize his or her wellbeing, without being envious. They are self-interested but
not egoists. They are not prepared to take a risk or resort to gambling. According to Rawls, in such a
state of uncertainty the rational negotiators will choose the least dangerous path. In other words, each
individual will hypothetically place himself or herself in 'the least advantaged position' while
recommending the criteria of allocation of the primary goods. Hence each of them will demand
greatest benefit for the least advantaged.

The original position

The Original Position the basic subject of Rawls' theory of justice is to form the principles of
justice that judge whether the structure of society distributes social profits, rights, and duties
justly or not. Such principles are justified because they would be agreed to an initial situation
of equality called the original position. the starting point of Rawls' theory of justice is the
original position. the original position corresponds to the state of nature in the traditional
theory of the social contract, but it is not thought of as an actual hist01ical state of affairs,
much less as a p1imitive condition of culture. It is understood as a purely hypothetical
situation characterized so as to lead to a certain conception of justice. It is to agree to the
principles of justice in order to lay down the principles which decide the basic structure of a
society. E

The veil of ignorance

One of the very strong pillars of Rawls’ theory of justice is veil of ignorance which is an
imaginary or hypothetical situation. When the members of the state of nature built up a civil
society all of them were the prisoners of veil of ignorance. This veil of ignorance is a very
important element of justice as fairness. Rawls has explained the concept elaborately in his
book. Rawls, “The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. This ensures
that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of
natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances”.

TWO PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE

John Rawls presented two principles of justice that self-interested and rational individuals would
choose when separated by the veil of ignorance. The principles include:

5|Page
First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties
compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others.
Second: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably
expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all.
Interpretation of the First Principle
Rawls admits that it is very difficult to make a list of all liberties which individuals can claim.
Because in different socio-economic and political structures nature and number of liberties shall
differ. In spite of this preliminary drawback, we must try to show what the principle exactly means. In
a society there shall exist an extensive list of equal basic liberties. All the persons shall have equal
right to all these liberties. No one can claim more than what others have got. Several things are very
important here.
A society must publicly announce all the liberties to which its members shall be entitled. In
other words, the members shall have equal right to all these liberties. These may alternatively
be called social values. The social values include economic, cultural, political, religious
freedom. In distributing these rights, the authority of the state will not make any
discrimination on the basis of race, sex, caste, language etc. Rawls reminds that mere
announcement of liberties is not of prime importance. The authority must take care that none
(because of manipulation or partiality adopted by authority) gets more than the other. The
simple implication is that unequal distribution of liberties is not only intriguing but also the
main cause of injustice. In the scheme of Rawls liberty has been prioritized. It means that
justice is vital no doubt but if liberty is not given priority and a discrimination crops up in
allotting rights and liberties injustice will be an inevitable consequence. For this reason, in
Rawls’ scheme liberty has been given first preference. Hence, we find that mere declaration
of rights and liberties does not constitute justice, implementation is of vital importance.
Interpretation of the Second Principle
We believe that the second principle is more important than the first principle. The second principle
has two parts. In these two parts there are two phrases:
(1) Everyone’s advantage and
(2) Open to all.
in the second principles Rawls makes heavy concessions for inequalities. He, here, imposes two
powerful conditions. Inequalities or unequal distribution of rights, liberties duties and privileges will
be allowed on the condition that it will be to everybody’s advantage or in other words, one will not be
in disadvantageous position and the other will be in advantageous position. This type of
discrimination is harmful for the society. But the reason of this unequal distribution will be allowed
on the condition that the privileges and opportunities shall be open to all.

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL
Rawls's theory of justice has been criticized by various schools of thought. Collectivists argue
that he has discovered the ground for the justification of the existing capitalist system. He has
shown that if the rich have the freedom to accumulate wealth, the poor would be
automatically benefited. Even if his principle of fair equality of opportunity is strictly
enforced, the existing disparities between the rich and the poor will not be substantially
reduced. A slight improvement in the condition of the most disadvantaged sections will be
treated as an excuse to permit vast socio-economic inequalities.
Some critics argue that the identification of the most disadvantaged sections is very difficult.
If income and wealth are treated the sole criteria for identifying such sections, how shall we
6|Page
compensate those who lack ability or who suffer from emotional insecurity? Marxists
contend that Rawls has tried to determine the principles of justice in a hypothetical condition
where people deliberate behind a 'veil of ignorance'. Any deliberations without the
knowledge of prevailing social and economic conditions are meaningless. Moral systems
should always be analysed in the light of class relations and the patterns of ownership of
private property. Libertarians argue that Rawls has sacrificed liberty for the sake of equality.
Why should we force the meritorious and industrious to work for the benefit of the most
disadvantaged sections? Moreover, enterprising persons must take risks for their
advancement in life. Rawls's negotiators are not prepared to take risk. How would they help
in social progress? Communitarians point out that Rawls's political philosophy does not grade
any conception of good life as superior or inferior to others. This ethical neutrality evades the
opportunity of the pursuit of the common good. These diverse critiques seem to be based on
biased interpretations of Rawls's theory of justice. In fact, Rawls has tried to combine
different value-systems in order to arrive at his theory of justice. Some tenets of these value-
systems are thought to be incompatible with each other. Any attempt to combine them must
yield a complex model. This applies to the present case also. Rawls's theory of justice
represents a convergence of libertarianism, egalitarianism and communitarianism.
In the first place, Rawls is libertarian because his conception of men negotiating in the
'original position' envisages those who are trying to maximize their self-interest. This
conforms to libertarian point of view. Secondly, his first principle of justice accords priority
to liberty which cannot be compromised for any other benefit. Then Rawls is egalitarian
because he concedes 'equal' liberty for all. Further, he insists that social-economic
inequalities can be allowed only if they satisfy the condition of fair equality of opportunity
for all. In other words, he accepts equality as a cardinal principle, and insists that only
inequalities shall be required to be justified. Again, he rules that any reward for merit and
effort must satisfy the condition that it yields greatest benefit to the least advantaged. Why
should the meritorious accommodate the interests of the least advantaged? Here Rawls
invokes the principle of the 'chain connection' operating between different individuals. More
meritorious enjoy the benefits of their merit in association with the less meritorious lot. A
chain is no stronger than its weakest link. Rawls shows that society can be strengthened by
strengthening its weakest parts successively. The idea of 'chain connection' brings Rawls very
close to the image of a communitarian.
However, it should not be forgotten that once these conditions are fulfilled, the capitalist
system is bound to assume a new humane look. In fact, Rawls has discovered a method for
making procedural justice an instrument of meeting the requirements of social justice.

7|Page
 NOZICK’S THEORY OF JUSTICE
After throwing light on important aspects of Rawls’ theory of justice, another theory of justice
propounded by Robert Nozick in his Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974) is one of the famous theories.
Anarchy, State, and Utopia opens with the famously bold claim that “Individuals have rights, and
there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights)”. Robert Nozick
(1938-2002) was an American academic and a renowned political philosopher. His Anarchy, State
and Utopia created a profound influence upon the contemporary academic world of political science
and political philosophy. Rawls’ theory of justice was based on liberty, equality and inequality. The
policy makers shall pursue a scheme for the furtherance of liberty, equality and inequalities where
such inequalities will benefit the least advantaged. But Nozick developed his theory in response to
Rawls’ theory and he based his theory of justice on rights. Though both Rawls and Nozick have
developed two theories of justice it cannot be said that Nozick was in any form critical of Rawls.
Rather he has showered huge accolade on the former. Rawls’ theory of justice, Nozick cautiously
maintains, “is a fountain of illuminating ideas, integrated together into a lovely whole. Political
philosophers now must either work within his theory or explain why not”. In his early years Nozick
was a great supporter of extreme libertarianism and in the far end of life he considerably modified his
extreme libertarianism. Some are of opinion that ultimately Nozick appears to us as a strong supporter
of a political doctrine which is known to us as neo-liberalism. If Rawls is known as a 'left liberal' or
egalitarian liberal advocating a substantially redistributive welfare state, Nozick may be described as a
'right liberal' or libertarian committed to a laissez-faire 'nightwatchman' state.

Nozick’s vision of legitimate state power thus contrasts markedly with that of Rawls and his
followers. Rawls argues that the state should have whatever powers are necessary to ensure that those
citizens who are least well-off are as well-off as they can be (though these powers must be consistent
with a variety of basic rights and freedoms). This viewpoint is derived from Rawls’s theory of justice,
one principle of which is that an unequal distribution of wealth and income is acceptable only if those
at the bottom are better off than they would be under any other distribution. Nozick’s response to such
arguments is to claim that they rest on a false conception of distributive justice: they wrongly define
a just distribution in terms of the pattern it exhibits at a given time (e.g., an equal distribution or a
distribution that is unequal to a certain extent) or in terms of the historical circumstances surrounding
its development (e.g., those who worked the hardest have more) rather than in terms of the nature of
the transactions through which the distribution came about. For Nozick, any distribution of
“holdings,” as he calls them, no matter how unequal, is just if (and only if) it arises from a just
distribution through legitimate means.

Modes of Acquisition

Nozick ridicules Rawls's approach which seeks to determine the principles of distribution of certain
goods as if they have come to us as a gift from heaven. Nozick insists on a realistic approach which
should account for the different modes of acquisition of goods and entitlement of different individuals
to own those goods. He has identified three sources through which various goods are acquired by
individuals:

(a) Their selves—their bodies, brain cells, etc. They have absolute right over them. An individual is
free to use his limbs and brain to do whatever he likes;

8|Page
(b) The natural world—land, water resources, minerals, etc. Individuals may acquire bits of the
natural world through several methods and may become entitled to their use as they like. This is
precisely the area where principles of entitlement are required to be determined according to logic;
and

(c) The things people make by applying themselves to the natural world—agricultural and industrial
products, etc. An individual's entitlement to these products may not be questioned. Voluntary transfer
of these goods will establish others' entitlement to them.

When the three above noted holdings are conglomerated under one head that gives birth to a concrete
shape of the theory of justice. It can be better put in the words of Nozick. He writes: “The general
outlines of a theory of justice in holdings are that the holdings of a person are just if he is entitled to
them by the principles of justice in acquisition and transfer, or, by the principle of rectification of
injustice. If each person’s holdings are just then the total set of holdings is just”. So, anyone who
acquired what he has through these means is morally entitled to it. Thus the “entitlement” theory
of justice states that the distribution of holdings in a society is just if (and only if) everyone in that
society is entitled to what he has. If justice means the distribution of right, duties, privileges etc. then
the idea of justice can appropriately be interpreted as entitlement theory of justice.

PRINCIPLES OF ENTITLEMENT

The subject of justice in holdings consists of three major topics, ‘the original acquisition of holdings’
i.e., the appropriation of un-held things, ‘transfer of holdings’ from one person to another and
‘rectification of injustice’. People's entitlement to self-ownership of their body and mind—their
physical and mental faculties is obvious and needs no further justification. Their entitlement to bits of
the natural world and the products of their labour should be based on the principles of justice. The
three major topics that Nozick identifies on which this entitlement would conform to justice are
explained below:
(a) Initial acquisition:
It is an account of how people first came to own property and what types of things can be
held. It is the method whereby an individual comes to appropriate some previously unowned
bits of the natural world. Those who come to settle in an uninhabited continent may
legitimately acquire its land and natural resources on first come first served basis, as long as
nobody is made worse off by their doing so. This means that this mode of acquisition should
not result in creating scarcity for others—a condition which may scarcely be satisfied.
Therefore, the acquisition will be just, 'as long as enough and as good is left for others’
(b) Voluntary transfer:
It applies to all property whether acquired through initial acquisition or by mixing one's
labour with the natural world, i.e., by means of one's talents, efforts, enterprise, etc. in a
market situation. In other words, if one uses others' labour and pay them as per market rates,
he/she becomes the owner of the product of their labour. Though it must be noted that the
contract is voluntary and not fulfilled through coercion. Hence, it means that any contract that
includes selling of own self or other individual in the form of slavery will be considered void.
In all such transactions, an individual shall be treated as 'end-in-itself’, and not as a means to
others' ends. This is similar to the moral principle enunciated by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804),
a German philosopher.

(c) Rectification of injustice:

This states on how to deal with holdings that are unjustly acquired or transferred, whether and
how much victims can be compensated, how to deal with long past transgressions or
injustices done by a government, and so on. This is precisely the area where the state or the
international community will be justified to intervene in order to restore justice. Nozick
concedes that the history of the world abounds with involuntary transfers as well as unjust

9|Page
 acquisitions of natural resources. As long as economic disparities result from voluntary
transfers, Nozick is not bothered. But if some country has gained control over rare natural
resources depriving others of their legitimate share, Nozick would step in to register his
protest. For example, if a country tries to take over the single source of water or other natural
source like crude oil, Nozick describes it to be unjust and this where the government has to
intervene and rectify the injustice caused. Whereas, If Sachin Tendulkar becomes a
millionaire because millions of people are willing to pay to watch him play cricket, it is his
legitimate right. Similarly, if a famous designer demands exorbitant charges from his
customers, there is nothing wrong in this deal for Nozick, because he does not make anybody
worse off.
Nozick believes that if the world were wholly just, only the first two principles would be
needed, as “the following inductive definitions would exhaustively cover the subject of justice
in holdings.
A) A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition
is entitled to that holding.
B) A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer,
from someone else is entitled to the holding.
C) No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) application of 1 and 2 (Nozick
1974:151)
Unfortunately, not everyone follows these rules, “some people steal from others or defraud them, or
enslave them, seizing their product and preventing them from living as they choose, or forcibly
exclude others from competing in exchanges”. (Ibid:152). Thus, the third principle of rectification is
needed. ‘Self-ownership’ is the cornerstone of Nozick’s work. It is from this source that the right of
the individual and the minimal state originate

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL
It can be seen that Nozick’s theory is based on three key principles. Nozick put forward the claim that,
in order to deserve something, a person must be entitled to it according to the principle of justice in
acquisition, the principle of justice in transfer, or the principle of rectification. However, he does not
tell us what these principles actually consist of. Consequently, this lack much of the value it could
have had if it had been more complete. Instead of providing an original principle of justice in
acquisition, Nozick refers us to Locke’s theory of property. By doing so, he inherits all the
weaknesses of the Lockean theory of property. This is particularly important since, if the principle of
the theory in acquisition is flawed, the entire entitlement theory collapses, because this principle
constitutes the foundation of all kinds of entitlement to holding. Nozick claims to discover the
principles of justice for all human beings, but his bias is quite clear. Nozick in the name of ‘justice’,
wants to maintain the prevailing oppression in the society. He is out-and-out champion of a
competitive market society which favours the rich and the resourceful, and lets the weak go to the
wall. He absolves the rich of all social responsibility, not to speak of social indebtedness. Nozick
completely ignores the principle of justice in transfer. The principle is unclear as how would one
know when transfer holdings from one person to another is just. The entitlement theory provides no
answer to this question, other than suggesting that people are free to transmit their holdings to others
if they wish to do so. The only principle sufficiently explained, the rectification principle, relies on the
other two in order to acquire any meaning, so if the other two principles are void so is the rectification
principle. Also, his principle of 'rectification' is designed to legitimize the huge riches of the
manipulators. Nozick invokes moral principles to demolish a redistributive, welfare state. He
approves of taxation only for the provision of the common services, like streets and street lights,
police and defence, etc. When a part of taxes imposed on the rich, is spent on welfare of the poor,
Nozick would term it immoral, as it is akin to 'forced labour'. In Nozick's view it involves using
abilities and efforts of one section as means to others' ends; it involves involuntary transfer and,
therefore, violates the moral principle. Nozick makes welfare of the poor dependent on charity and not
on justice. He is not prepared to admit that the operation of competitive market society may itself
create certain conditions of injustice. In contrast, Rawls's provision for the regulation of social-

10 | P a g e
economic inequalities on the condition of giving greatest benefit to the least advantaged shows his
genuine concern for justice.
There were many questions that arose on his rectification principle like, how far shall one go to rectify
these injustices? What parameter should be used to measure the quantity of what to rectify of what
happened decades back. What of those that have benefited from those injustices, should this be termed
an unjust acquisition? Overall, the entitlement theory as it has been put forward by Robert Nozick
feels incomplete, like a law which has a structure but does not have actual legal disposition inside it to
give it real meaning. These notwithstanding, Nozick’s theory has delighted a number of people whose
political posture is decidedly to the right. But most of the literature that his book has inspired has been
critical. It as if political writers see Nozick’s arguments as important enough to require a response.

MARXIST VIEW OF JUSTICE

CONCERN WITH JUSTICE

Status of the notion of justice in the Marxist thought has remained a controversial subject. One view
is that Marxism aims at replacing capitalism by socialism for which revolution is indispensable.
Inclination toward justice would mean maintaining the existing system with minor changes, and thus
making a departure from the basic tenets of Marxism. This view regards the question of justice as
irrelevant for the Marxist theory. It holds that the exploitation of workers as described in Marx's
Capital (1861-79) is the natural characteristic of capitalism. It would be futile to regard it as the
problem of injustice and to try to find its solution within the capitalist system. Marx did not seek any
reform in the level of incomes and wages within the capitalist system itself, but he wanted to
transform the entire mode of production and property relations.
In the Critique of the Gotha Programme Marx makes the following remark. “The emancipation of
labour demands the promotion of the instruments of labour to the common property of society and the
cooperative regulation of the total labour with a fair distribution of proceeds of labour.” So, we can
say that the fair distribution of the proceeds constitutes the very foundation of the theory of justice and
because of this we can say that Marxian theory of justice is distributive in nature. Fair distribution is
at the same time a claim or right of the labourers because the proceeds are due to their labour and
naturally, they have legitimate claim to those proceeds and the legitimate claim relates to fair
distribution. Thus, the legitimate claims and fair distribution are closely connected. Since Marxian
theory of justice is distributive, it implies that all the benefits and burdens within the society shall be
properly distributed among all the members of the society, and no discrimination shall be allowed to
rise. Marx calls this fair distribution.

The proceeds of labour belong to all members of the society. To put it in other words fair distribution
is a right which all workers can claim. When this right is ignored or not fulfilled then it can be said
that in that society justice is not supposed to exists. It we thoroughly study Marxism we shall find that
standards of right and justice are internal to the specific modes of production. In The Critique of the
Gotha Programme Marx says. “Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and
its cultural development conditioned thereby”.

ABOLITION OF CAPITALISM AND ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNISM

Marx and Engels extensively studied the rise and growth of capitalism and they formed the conclusion
that it was out and out unjust because its foundation was exploitation. A system or an economy based
or exploitation can never be an abode of justice. He called exploitation not only unfair but also a
“robber”. The working class was deprived of its legitimate share of profit or all sorts of benefits. In
capitalism profits and other pecuniary benefits are forcibly gobbled by the capitalists and their
henchmen and this finally led the working class to the zenith of impoverishment and deprivation. In
such a system there cannot exist justice. In Marx’s account capitalism is the symbol of injustice and

11 | P a g e
the most tragic aspect of capitalism is the capitalists and bourgeois theoreticians call it freedom and
perfect democracy. Marx concluded that the abolition of capitalism and establishment of communism
can ensure the setting up of justice. One can infer from this statement that Marx was in favour of
reformism. That is, he wanted to reform capitalist system for the sake, of justice and other lofty ideals.
The exact situation is not so. He believed that not the reforming of capitalist system but its total
abolition could bring about justice.

MARX’s TWO CONCEPTS OF JUSTICE

It has been maintained by some especially Norman Barry that Marx had two concepts of justice-one
for socialist society and the other for communist society and he made this mention in The Critique of
the Gotha Programme.

1. The basic characteristic of the socialist justice or the justice of socialist society is the
ownership of the means of production and exploitation have been abolished and the
distributive justice will commence its new journey. The worker will receive in proportion to
what he produces. In other words, the remuneration will be in commensurate with his labour
or contribution to production. The abolition of ownership and exploitation will lead to the
general ownership of the whole society and the workers will be the owners of the sources of
production. The establishment of socialism, we come to know from Marx’s analysis, will
augur a new type of justice basically different from capitalist form of justice. Summarising
Marxian concept of justice that prevails in socialism Norman Barry maintains: “Nevertheless,
some inequality will persist since people’s labour contributions will vary according to their
talents and many of the objectionable features of a money economy will remain”. In socialist
society full form of justice will not find its implementation and Marx has admitted that it is
inevitable because in socialism there shall exist some remnants of capitalism.
2. In communist society the distributive justice assumes different form and this has been stated
by Marx in The Critique of Gotha Programme. "In a higher phase of communist society, after
the enslaving subordinating of individual to the division of labour and therewith also the
antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished after labour has become not only
a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the
all-round development of the individual and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more
abundantly only then the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and the
society inscribe on its banners, from each according to his ability to each according to his
needs."

12 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

Karl Marx, John Rawls, and Robert Nozick are three prominent philosophers whose political
theories have an important place in the modern political debate about the concept of justice.
In Marx's view, the principle of distributive justice is necessarily betrayed under the
condition of private ownership—the capitalist exploits workers—and the solution is the
replacement of private by public ownership. Ultimately, the principle of justice is replaced by
the principle of beyond justice. Nozick sees private ownership as the natural result of the
principle, a condition he regards as self-ownership. Rawls shares this position with Nozick,
but seeks to improve its operation with “justice as fairness,” which combines the principle of
justice with the principle of beyond justice. Neither Nozick nor Rawls intuits that the
principle itself would be betrayed under the condition of private ownership. A common
critique of Marx’s ideas is that without the capitalist economic system there can be no progress,
no motivation for people to work, however there are some cultures, for example many Asian
countries (Japan) whose culture promotes work ethics not for material incentives but for the
sake of recognition and pride. A large portion of Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, The State and
Utopia is dedicated to refuting the theories of John Rawls. Specifically, A common critique of
Marx’s ideas is that without the capitalist economic system there can be no progress, no
motivation for people to work, however there are some cultures Rawls wrote that economic
inequalities should only be permitted if they are to the benefit of society, and especially if
they are to the benefit of its least advantaged members; this has come to be known as “the
difference principle”. Nozick believed that no one had any business “permitting” economic
inequalities at all. To Nozick, as long as economic inequalities arise from voluntary
exchange, they cannot be unjust. Nozick’s obsession with his individual rights might bring
him and some others egocentric pleasure at the expense of many, probably the community,
which is non-existent in their world consisted only of “individuals”. To Nozick, talking about
the “collective good” of human beings is merely to obscure the fact that an individual is being
used to benefit another. Nozick characterises rights to liberty in terms of giving the individual
control over certain decisions, and each person may exercise his rights as he chooses. But
there is no guarantee.

13 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.John Rawls' 'Theory of Justice'

2.'Anarchy, State and Utopia' by Robert Nozick
3.'Socialism and Justice' by Valentin Stoian
4. O.P. Gauba
5. Western Political Thought by Shefali Jha
6. Nozick's theory of Entitlement – Ogrisih
7. some scholarly articles

14 | P a g e